If there is a second referendum ...

Kohoutek

It would help if everyone stepped back from the froth of current debates and considered:

(1) what is the personal downside to you, if any, of the UK's membership of the EU?

(2) what is the personal downside to you of medium term political and economic instability and long term reduced economic growth (lower incomes, lower government tax revenues)?

phillw

BobQ wrote: »

Our so called negotiators just muddled on, not believom them and not agreeing even in the cabinet.

The situation is still on going. Boris wants a freedom clause, which is essentially crossing your fingers while making a promise. He knows what he's doing, he thinks either the voters or the EU are dumb enough to accept what he says and that it will be enough to push it through.

It's a very very damaging game of chicken that these rich gits are playing with our lives.

I don't know how leave voters don't realise just how much he is disrespecting them with his waffle.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Kohoutek wrote: »

It would help if everyone stepped back from the froth of current debates and considered:

(1) what is the personal downside to you, if any, of the UK's membership of the EU?

(2) what is the personal downside to you of medium term political and economic instability and long term reduced economic growth (lower incomes, lower government tax revenues)?

1, Immigrants, EU superpower taking over tha country, sovruntea

2, none, we new their wud be no munny but BREXIT MEENS BREXIT TRAITER!!!

gfplux

If there is another referendum what would the questions be.

Herzlos

Masomnia wrote: »

The USA has better health outcomes than the UK in most areas.

And anyway, doesn't most of Europe have insurance based healthcare and far more private provision than we do?

American healthcare is pretty good for those that can afford it, otherwise it's pretty grim. Even for those who can afford it, it costs far more than here, even the co-pay/excess can bankrupt people. I've known people who've had to sell their house to pay for treatment.

I don't have much experience of the European health services, but I believe you are right in that some of it is insurance based.

Enterprise_1701C

gfplux wrote: »

If there is another referendum what would the questions be.

Whatever deal is on the table or No Deal.

We should have told them we were gone as soon as we actioned Article 50. Then we could have negotiated on our terms, we would have been out out.

Yvette Cooper and co are rather keen to tie the hands of this government, if they can't have no deal on the table then how the hell are they meant to negotiate. :mad::mad: But then, that is the intention, another way to try to stop Brexit, or another way for Corbyn to try to force his way into power? He is getting pretty desperate now.

Arklight

Masomnia wrote: »

The USA has better health outcomes than the UK in most areas.

And anyway, doesn't most of Europe have insurance based healthcare and far more private provision than we do?

I'm interested as to why you think that. There are some areas like overall life expectancy and cancer survival rates where the US is ahead of the UK, but the UK doesn't fare at all well for these things compared to most other countries with "socialised" healthcare.

Otherwise, the USA has 30 million people with no health insurance at all. After that a standard poverty policy, which can easily run you at $500 a month could well have 50% co-pay with exemptions for any number of preventative care procedures and drugs, and a complete exclusion on care outside your state.

I've met Americans who weren't old enough to claim Medicare but were having to fund age related conditions whose insurance was averaging $2000 a month (which worked out as a bit less than them paying out of pocket).

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/journal-article/2016/nov/new-survey-11-countries-us-adults-still-struggle-access-and?redirect_source=/publications/in-the-literature/2016/nov/2016-international-health-policy-survey-of-adults

An 11-country survey finds that adults in the United States are far more likely than those in other countries to go without needed care because of costs and to struggle to afford basic necessities such as housing and healthy food. U.S. adults are also more likely to report having poor health and emotional distress. Bright spots for the U.S. include rates of timely access to specialist care, discussion with a physician about ways to lead a healthy life, and coordinated hospital discharge planning.

Perhaps unsurprisingly the US spends over 2 times as much on providing healthcare as we do.



The insurance schemes you are talking about in Europe are state run. You can't opt out of them and the premiums aren't set by the market. They are as different to the US model as chalk is to cheese.

I have experienced medical care in California when a colleague had an accident and we thought she had broken her ankle. There was no care at all in the expensive private hospital we drove to. They were rude and unhelpful when we went to the pre-booked appointment and watched her hobble around the empty waiting room with no help at all, in severe pain, until she had filled out all their forms and they had verified with her work insurance that she had coverage.

When I needed to go for something in Michigan I called my UK insurance line and they told me not to go to ER because it would be so full of uniunsured people I could easily wait an entire day.

I went to the clinic they told me to, pulled into the car park which demanded $35 just to leave my car in one of the 300 empty spaces, looked at the flashing neon hypodermic signs and notices about what they would and wouldn't do until you'd provided a credit card and decided to just suffer until I got back home.

Herzlos

Masomnia wrote: »

The manifestos they stood on were quite clear. The main pro-remain parties, Lib Dem and SNP lost vote share.

And the only fully pro-Brexit party, UKIP, did how well exactly? They got 0 seats, which hardly shows any great support for Brexit.

mayonnaise

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

if they can't have no deal on the table then how the hell are they meant to negotiate. :mad::mad:

This 'no deal' negotiation option only exists in the mind of the deluded 'they need us more than we need them' brigade.
Threatening to commit economical suicide is not really a credible negotiating stance.

adindas

Herzlos wrote: »

And the only fully pro-Brexit party, UKIP, did how well exactly? They got 0 seats, which hardly shows any great support for Brexit.

As always, it is a very interesting way of thinking, conclusion.

Are the people who are allowed to vote in the UK only UKIP. How many UKIP supporters are they how many people how many people are eligible to vote.

How did you know for certain that there is hardly any great support for brexit. What we already know for sure more people provided support for brexit based on the referendum. Vast majority of the parliament support brexit. The other things is just prediction which has been proven wrong in the past. Prediction reman prediction until proven it is correct.